John’s Blog

A reader sent me an e-mail today that made me think about greed as the source of discontent in our society.

There is a connection between conservatism and greed but it is not an absolute “A=B”.

One can be ‘conservative’ (as I am) and not be greedy (as I am not).
Greed stems from conservatism but is not necessarily the end product. Too much conservatism is greed.

In other words, I want to be self-sufficient and in so doing I must accumulate enough of the  ‘implements’ to do so. In primitive times this meant arrowheads, wood,  skins and dried meat.

Today it is money. I feel money is a vehicle (a bartering medium) that will allow me to trade for those things that lead to my survival.
It has never been my goal to accumulate more than I feel is necessary to meet the goal of survival in a modern world– a world of taxes and shelter and fuel (energy) and transportation and food and some left over for pleasure.
Without some pleasure life becomes merely existence.

Those who accumulate simply with that as a goal are indeed greedy and that breeds resentment in those who are truly deficient.
This leads to extreme ‘liberalism’  using the vehicle of guilt to take from the truly greedy….and give to perhaps the less greedy.

How much is ’sufficient’? Who evaluates how much pleasure one is entitled to?
How much money do the apparently  deficient allocate to pleasure that gives them the appearance of insufficient means of survival?

My grandfather’s favorite expression was, “Moderation in all things.”

In short be conservative (self-sufficient) but not greedy.

   On November 29th, 2007 I posted an article that I had written, “NO REVOLUTION-YET”.

   At the time I certainly didn’t expect to see what I have seen on TV today in London during the G20 Meetings.

  When I wrote that article I had only considered economics– Money.

  I forgot about, or really never thought that I would need to consider, another equally important reason for revolution.

  That is the loss of freedom. I had always expected that to be a constant and an absolute in the US. but events are changing the rules of the game.

   I had expected a relatively stable middle-class but the concept of the loss of personal freedom is changing that. People have very little faith in their future now.

  Guns and ammunition, the tools of revolution, are flying off the shelves as fast as they are stocked.

   The masses are in a state of both economic and emotional depression.

   If the people lose confidence in our government’s ability to deal with the multiple problems facing the country will revolution become a possibilty?

   If the government feels itself threatened will it result in an attempt to confiscate weapons and declare martial law?

    If so will there be a revolution?

    I apologize to my readers for not keeping this BLOG updated but I received a comment from a regular reader and it set the ’spark’ that was necessary.

   The reader I refer to has a site definitely worth visiting: www.blog4brains.com.

   I guess that’s what it takes. We are simply humans and it seems that once we get into a rut we tend stay there. It is the easy way out. Someone needs to poke us with a stick.

   Anyway, the reader mentioned that we have a neglected freedom, the freedom to fail.

  Our present American culture has become very–I won’t call it success oriented–but ‘anti-failure’ oriented.

  I first experienced this in 1968 when I had moved into a new neighborhood and a neighbor invited me to his home for a visit.

   The basement had been made into a very impressive game room and while touring the house his young son challenged me to a game of table tennis.

   The boy was very good but I managed to win a very close game.

   Both the kid and the father significantly cooled and the visit ended fairly quickly.

   When we went outside, the father said angrily, “You were supposed to let him win!”

   Having been a Boy Scout, an Assistant Scoutmaster, an Explorer Advisor and a Cub Scout Committee Chairman I was very surprised by that attitude.

  During my entire life I had been conditioned to survive and one only survives by giving everything in you to every task. The concept of intentional failure was beyond my comprehension.

   Since then we have seen the system of survival replaced by the system of ‘preservation of self-esteem’

  School children are not permitted to fail. No matter how poor their performance they still graduate from high school barely able to read, write a meaningful sentence or give you back the correct change.

  We do have the ‘freedom to fail’. If you manage your personal finances or your business in a manner in which you cannot survive then it is necessary that you fail.

  I am fairly certain that if you cannot compete in business or in the academic fields in China, India or Russia then you have the freedom to fail.

  No one will bail you out if you are a proven loser.

  Why should they?

   If we continue to place a higher value on  self-esteem than on performance, we, as a country, can expect to fail. It is, after all, one of our freedoms.

A number of years ago I started seeing ads on TV that went something like:

“I owed the IRS $10,000 but I went to the firm of Joe Cheat and Associates and I only had to pay back $400.”

This, in my opinion, was the start. People tried to weasel out of their obligations in a semi-acceptable manner.

If you owe the IRS taxes it’s because you made the money. It’s as simple as that.

The problem, however, is the honest guy who sees that ad over and over again starts to wonder why he/she doesn’t do the same.

We have some wonderful examples of our ‘Big-League’ politicians who are doing this on a grand scale.

“Hell, why waste time with Joe Cheat and Associates, I’ll just bypass the middleman and simply not pay my taxes?” 

No one wants to voluntarily give away their hard-earned money but that happens to be the system that we live under.

If you want government services you must pay for them. That’s why we have a system of taxation. To do otherwise is to take advantage of the person who is willing to work and play by the rules.

Remember, money doesn’t come cheap. You trade hours of your life for a paycheck.

You have made a decision to swap part of your life for dollars.

How many hours of your life are you willing to give to someone who would rather go fishing or play golf instead of working because he/she figured out a system to coast at your expense?

I understand that the purpose of the  Stimulus Package is to create 3 million new jobs.

At a cost of about $700 billion dollars that comes out to about $233,000 to create each new job.

Am I missing something in the math????

I’d like one of those.

Where do you apply???